Clinical Bioethics Blog : Bioethicist : Bernard W. Freedman : Medical Consulting, Ethics, End of Life Decisions

At present the Missouri State Senate is considering new legislation (SB 365), which means to provide health insurance coverage for Phase I and Phase II clinical trials for cancer treatment. The law in the state of Missouri presently limits mandated insurance coverage to Phase III and Phase IV clinical trials.

Aside from the fact that this bill makes no sense whatsoever, it highlights the ignorance of what Phase I or Phase II trials are intended to accomplish. SB 365 seeks to force insurers, non profit health services plans, or health maintenance organizations to treat Phase I and II trials as if they are treatment – beneficial to the patient – which they certainly are not.  Since neither Phase I nor Phase II clinical trials are deemed treatment, or have any reasonable expectation of any real benefit to the patient, it makes no sense to compel payment for claims unrelated to actual health care treatment. 

Phase I trials are used solely to determine levels of toxicity of the drug being investigated. Phase II trial try to determine if the drug being investigated has any effect on the underlying disease, in this instance, cancer. Prior law in Missouri did make some sense by requiring insurance coverage for phase III and phase IV clinical trials would be covered because of, at least, the opportunity of benefit the patient i.e. actual therapeutic treatment. 

The bill then, in contradiction of the scheme of clinical trials, requires that “available clinical or preclinical data must provide a reasonable expectation that the treatment will be superior to the non-investigational alternatives.” This is outright stupidity because by the nature of phase I and phase II clinical trials there cannot be any clinical or preclinical data that provides any reasonable expectation that there is any treatment, actual therapeutic care, that will be gained. The bill seems to suggest that the patient will benefit from coverage for “routine patient care costs incurred for drugs…” The proposed legislation, however, defines “routine patient care cost” are the necessary costs needed to administer the drug under evaluation in the clinical trial, not actual care and treatment that will protect the patient. Accordingly, this proposed legislation is a sham, forcing insurers to pay for investigational drug research being performed by pharmaceutical companies, government, biotech companies, academia and privately run (outsourced) clinical trial programs.  

      All costs for Phase I and II trials should be born by the research investigators, including all necessary medical costs for the patient’s underlying condition as well as care during the clinical trial and thereafter to the degree that treatment is related to ill effects or adverse reaction to the drugs or medical devices being investigated.

This proposed legislation is unconstitutional by interfering in the right of freedom of contract because it requires payment for things outside the purview of the insurance contact for actual medical, therapeutic treatment.            

Many states are considering, or have passed, similar legislation. For example in Arizona (SB 1213 2000) requires cost for patient care associated with clinical trials phase I through 4. Yet coverage is limited when no clearly superior non-investigational treatment exists. California has passed the same legislation limited to , “when no clearly superior non-investigational treatment exists.” The confusion here is that neither Phase I or Phase II trials are “treatment.”

Colorado (HB 09-1059-2009) requires a similar coverage, but only when the physician believes that the patient may benefit from the clinical trial and when the patient has a disabling progressive or life threatening condition.

Connecticut (SB 325-2001) mandates coverage, but only in Phase III clinical trials and only if they involve “therapeutic intervention.” This legislation makes sense because it is limited to instances of “therapeutic intervention.”

Similarly Delaware (SB 181-2001) mandates coverage only when the clinical trial provides “therapeutic intent and where the trial is not designed exclusively to test toxicity or disease pathophysiology. This would, therefore, exclude coverage of Phase I and Phase II trials.

Indiana (HB 1382-2009) is similar to the confusion of the Missouri bill because it requires cost to be paid for Phase 1 through phase IV cancer clinical trials – but only when there is no clearly superior non-investigational alternative care available, and when the clinical data shows that the care method used in the research study is likely to work as well as approved care. This condition may make sense in Phase III or IV trials but not feasible in Phase I or II trials.

North Carolina (SB 199-2001) has some interesting additions. Patients who are suffering from life threatening disease or chronic condition may designate a specialist who is capable of coordinating their health care needs and insurers do not have to pay for “investigative” clinical trials. Similarly Wisconsin (AB 617-2006) limits insurers’ responsibility for payments when trials are intended to improve the participants’ health outcome and not designed only to test toxicity or disease pathophysiology – thus eliminating mandated coverage in Phase I and II trials.

The level of misunderstanding (feigned or actual) of the purpose of Phase I and Phase II clinical trials will have to be dealt with by the Federal Court of Appeals and possibly the Supreme Court to provide constitutional clarity as well as uniformity throughout the various States.

In addition to the confusion is a significant problem of giving credence to recruiting efforts Phase I and II cancer patients by giving the impression that Phase I and II trials are therapeutic and “paid for by your insurance company.” Informed consent is especially important in Phase II and II trials. These laws summarized above should not tend to lessen the requirement of detailed and well documented informed consent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 1996, Pfizer needed a randomized trial for a new broad spectrum antibiotic and sent a team of its doctors into the Nigerian slum City of Kano during a meningitis epidemic. It was represented, to be a "humanitarian mission.”

A team of Pfizer doctors arrived at the Nigerian camp where meningitis had killed at least 11,000 people.  They set up near a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders who were providing standard treatment. At the Kano Infectious Diseases Hospital, 200 sick children were picked. Half were given doses of the experimental Pfizer drug called Trovan and the others were treated with an established antibiotic.

Eleven of the children died and many more, it is alleged, suffered serious side effects ranging from organ failure to brain damage. After two weeks Pfizer summarily left the camp. Pfizer denies these allegations. The company claims only five children died after taking Trovan and six died after receiving injections of the certified drug Rocephin, (ceftriaxone). It is alleged that parents were not told that their children were to receive an experimental drug. It is reported, by Pfizer, that consent was obtained from the Nigerian state and produced a letter of permission from a Kano ethics committee which was a document that was alleged to have been a backdated form approved by the committee for a medical trial performed one year after this incident. 

Certainly, such conduct raises serious ethical questions, which reportedly targeted Pfizer with civil and criminal actions. In December 2000, the Washington Post published a lengthy examination of the trial. The Washington Post similarly found that Pfizer carried out the experiment on 200 children at a makeshift epidemic camp in the northern Nigerian town of Kano. The articles reported that Pfizer had no signed consent forms for the children and relied on a falsified ethics approval letter to defend the design of the experiment. 

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated, regarding Pfizer’s conduct,  that "the administration of drug trials without informed consent on the scale alleged in the complaints poses a real threat to international peace and security…and  "fosters distrust and resistance to international drug trials, cutting-edge medical innovation, and critical international public health initiatives in which pharmaceutical companies play a key role. ... As this case illustrates, the failure to secure consent for human experimentation has the potential to generate substantial anti-American animus and hostility."

Comment:

The fundamental ethical predicate in randomized clinical trials is that, based upon the state of knowledge at the time, it does not establish that either arm of the trial is superior to the other.  This is generally referred to as “equipoise” without which a randomized clinical trial may not ethically go forward. To administer an experimental drug to children with meningitis when an effective proven medication is available, needlessly and purposefully exposes patients to serious injury or death.

The attempt to avoid the legal protections for patients in the United States by carrying out randomized clinical trials in Africa, is particularly damning. We should, however, keep in mind that related problems exist in pediatric oncology Phase I Trials in the United States. Phase II and III trials analyze benefits and compare results to standard treatments. Phase I studies do not. They are, simply stated, experiments with no legitimate expectation of benefit to the research subject. In order to permit a child’s participation in a Phase I trial the law requires an informed consent to the parents or guardian. ( It is not legally clear whether a parent or guardian can consent to exposing their child to unnecessarily harmful experimentation.) Telling them about risks, however, does not discharge that requirement. It is an informed consent that must be obtained, not merely offered. It must be presented to the child and parents in an unbiased way, and it must also be comprehended. Neither research physicians nor the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been effective in accomplishing this task.

The tendency of research subjects to confuse their participation in clinical trials with personalized medical care is commonplace. There is an inherent conflict of interest between research physicians and child research subjects due to a misconception that treatment will be provided. This conflict may be most severe when it involves pediatric cancer patients and their parents. Children suffering from a terminal illness, whose quality of life may be eroded by pursuing hopes for survival in a phase I drug trial, where no real hope exists, need rigorous protection. Their perspective is not only a product of hope but also the result of repeated and purposeful misrepresentations by researchers and university medical centers that research subjects in phase I drug trials will receive “treatment.” Experimental toxicity studies however are not treatment. This misrepresentation has often been referred to as a “therapeutic misconception.”  

For many people a university medical center inspires a sense of awe and can engender their confidence and trust. This may account, in part, for a child’s or parent’s belief that there will be some benefit in participating in a Phase I trial.  There is a tendency in the recruitment process in Phase I trials to exploit this trust.

In a study published in the Journal of  Oncology (Perceptions of Patients and Physicians Regarding Phase I Cancer Clinical Trials: Implications for Physician-Patient Communication, three hundred twenty-eight patients and 48 physicians completed surveys regarding expectations regarding treatment outcomes. Although 95% of patients reported that quality of life was at least as important as length of life, only 28% reported that changes in quality of life with treatment were discussed with  physicians. In contrast, 73% of physicians reported that this topic was discussed.  As to risks of the Phase I trial, 91.5% of the physicians believed that they discussed the risks, while only 73% of the patients recalled discussing of risk.

Discordance Between Patients and Physicians About Consultation Content
                                                                              Physician       Patient     
Discussion Topic                                                   No.     %         No.     %             P*
Changes in quality of life with treatment              171     73.4      65      27.9     < .0001
Changes in length of life with treatment               140     59.6     69      29.4     < .0001
Changes in quality of life without treatment         145     62.5      67     28.9     < .0001
Changes in length of life without treatment          123     52.8      67     28.8     < .0001
Possible side effects from treatment                     217     92.0   184     78.0     < .0001
Possible benefits from treatment                           212     90.2    185     78.8     < .0001
Possible risks from treatment                                214     91.5    170     72.7     < .0001
*McNemar’s test.    

It is important to note that the word “treatment” is used with respect to a Phase I clinical trials. Yet, a Phase I Clinical Trial is not “treatment” it is experimental testing which, hopefully, will lead to a treatment.

IRBs are required by statute to determine, without any specific guidelines to help them, that there are adequate provisions for “…monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of subjects."  Yet, no monitoring is generally done by IRBs. The President’s Council for Bioethics found that:

" Amazingly, no one - not the director of NIH, the commissioner of the FDA, or a representative of the Pharmaceutical Researcher and Manufacturers of America - knows how many people participate in biomedical or other research studies in the United States each year. … no comprehensive data exist on specific aspects of research. No one can say how many research participants suffer serious, unexpected adverse events each year, either for a specific study or in general, and of those, how many sustain a permanent disability or die unexpectedly. "

The problem is perhaps best described by the Chairman of the Council, Leon Kass who, in his discussion with the panel of the President’s Council, raised the issue of simply being honest with research subjects:    

"If one simply says ‘they are the only subjects that are possibly available to advance our knowledge,’ however truly necessary that it is as a condition for using them, the question is whether it’s sufficient and whether one doesn’t want to try some kind of honest way to elicit their identification with the enterprise and not simply exploit their desperation.  It’s not an objection to proceeding with the research, but the question is:  How should they be regarded?  How should they be treated?  How should they be spoken to?"

  Hence, we must not labor under the misperception that lack of candidness and legitimate informed consent in clinical trials is limited to villages in Africa. Problems exist in the United States and must be seen as work for clinical bioethicists to improve the process of informed consent in Phase I trials, especially with children, and to put in place protocols to expose conflicts of interests.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link